Where I live, Rocky Mtn's, many good trails are 10-60 miles of paved or dirt road at relatively high speeds (40-60max)Ok for stock gearing and many of these trails are not only steep and rough, but at 8000-12000ft you bike gets a little sluggish and cant handle the steeps with the stock gearing. Thats where the low range would be perfect.

Thanks in advance!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Honestly, dual sporting a stock XR200R mixed in with high altitude is a significant compromise. IMO, you would be better off with a bigger bike (i.e. XR250/400) or mod your existing motor. I had to gear my stock XR down 2 teeth in the front to have the power I wanted in the Idaho Rockies at 7000-9000'. Even with a dual range trans, your gonna add more weight, the trans will have more parasitic loss, and you'll still be underpowered.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see if the swap would work, but if it were my money, I'd try to get more power out of the 200 to pull the gearing or go to a bigger bike.

Good luck,

KDXIdaho

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The ATC engine has a milder cam, less compression, a smaller carb, a pull-starter, an auto-clutch, a five-speed to the XR's six-speed, and substantially lower internal gear ratios. You would be going backwards with that swap.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

KDXIdaho, You have valid points, however I am, simply put, very short. I'd be way worse off on a xr250/400 then a slower 200. Hell, If I was tall enough, I'd get a WR250 and call it good.

I grew up riding dual-range bikes from the 70's. I've had a 1970 kaw g4tr, suzuki TC 90 & 125 and of course a trail 90 or two. I loved all of those bikes. They are light, fuel efficient, and preform fine even compared to some of my "modern" bikes. Sure suspension is bad, but I don't fire-road much. On the tight, steep trails with logs/rocks/creeks/steeps/boulders I've never had a better bike then a trail 90 or my 72' TC90 (both have dual range). And although not highway cruisers the two-strokes out of the bunch would always work fine for getting me to the trail.

The only problems with these bikes are:

1.Although the Engine/Trans/Frame/Suspension are all reliable, the Ignition system is not. I've never been stranded in the woods, but I have seen them die from time to time always due to points or condenser, so not exactly creating peace of mind.

2.Parts availability. I don't have to explain this one.

Thats why a dual-range xr200 would be Ideal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I put a ATC 200 motor in my 1982 XR200R very successfully but there were issues. The electric starter would not clear the front frame member so I had to remove the starter. This motor only has pull start but it works fine. I'm not sure about the dual range being a problem but the motor I used bolted right up and the mounts are the same. My motor is wider then the stock motor so I welded on some footpeg extensions as well as did a bit of bending on the shift and brake arms to clear things. I really enjoy this bike. No clutch, and yes not as much power but certainly enough to climb just about anything. My guess is you really have to look at the dual range part of the motor to see if it will fit

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. According to your "chart" I have only one option; 82-83 atc200e as the only other models with dual range have shaft drive.

The auto clutch actually sounds like a plus. If I was running the bike at 10-40mph fire-roading, I wouldn't want the auto clutch or even the dual range, but most of my off road riding is at 1-5mph. With this setup i won't have to worry about stalling the bike on the steep sections, and I'm glad you conformed the bike has engine braking. I would be SOL without it when going down the steeps.

And yes, I was planning on keeping the xr head along with the cylinder and piston to keep the more aggressive cam and higher compression ratio.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I wish I could take the folks from Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia (or other relatively flat areas) and send them on a real mountain trail at altitude. Not saying you are in-experienced riders just that I think you would have a different perspective on whats "handy" on a dirt bike. One of my favorite trails is less then four miles (one way), but climbs over 2500ft. 95% of the time you are on in incline and you are more often riding on rock then dirt. I've passed many wr's, drz's, and crfR's on my trail 90. well, thats true when going up;). For the most part lots of suspension travel, and a ton of horsepower don't make a better bike. What matters is:

1. gearing

2. weight

3. Height

4. ground clearance

Not trying to disrespect anyone or underestimate their skill, just stating my situation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I wish I could take the folks from Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia (or other relatively flat areas) and send them on a real mountain trail at altitude. Not saying you are in-experienced riders just that I think you would have a different perspective on whats "handy" on a dirt bike. One of my favorite trails is less then four miles (one way), but climbs over 2500ft. 95% of the time you are on in incline and you are more often riding on rock then dirt. I've passed many wr's, drz's, and crfR's on my trail 90. well, thats true when going up;). For the most part lots of suspension travel, and a ton of horsepower don't make a better bike. What matters is:

1. gearing

2. weight

3. Height

4. ground clearance

Not trying to disrespect anyone or underestimate their skill, just stating my situation.

Just a little FYI, I grew up riding in the mountains. Doesn't change my opinion that the engine swap you're contemplating isn't going to accomplish much beyond giving you a heavier XR200 with really low gearing. Given that the XR has a 6-speed to the ATC's 5-speed, you could accomplish the same thing with sprockets and still have a more usable top gear.

A KDX still makes a better mountain trail machine. And even if you are short, a lowered KDX will still have more suspension travel, more ground clearance, and much better torque than the ATC/XR200.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I grew up riding in the mountains of East Tennessee. Moved to Idaho and had a KDX200. Hooked up with some of the natives that had ridden Idaho trails for decades and they told me I'd be better off on a 4-stroke. Every one of them had XRs, DRs, etc.

I told em that the KDX is just as good, if not better, mountain/trail bike than an XR. Luggable, lighter, better power, suspension, etc... They kept saying that for whatever reason, the old school 4-strokes hooked up better where they rode.

After riding with em a bit, I had to eat crow. Loose, steep, rocky switchbacks, crawling goat trails, loose terrain; I had to agree - old-school 4 strokes ruled where we rode.

Gave the KDX to my older son, bought an XR200R and never looked back. Perfect bike for my size and it hooked up better than the KDX in the Rockies, no question.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As far as weight the XR200 is lighter than just about any trail bike (other than a Trials bike), here are a few weights using a friends "certified" scale:

90 XR200R no fuel: 218 (close to Honda spec which ranges from 216-222 depending on year)

95 XR250R no fuel: 255

TLR200: 222

From others on TT:

CR125 w XR200 : 222

CR500 no fuel: 228

Honda specs:

CRF150F curb: 236

CRF230F curb: 249.7

As far as 2T vs 4T I won't go there as all of the fast bikes that I've owned were 2Ts. Back in the early eighties our group decided that the XR200 engine and a light bike was the best solution for mountain trails. Almost any bike will beat a XR200 in a drag race but for loose, steep, rocky switchbacks they are hard to beat. All bikes have improved a lot since then but weight still seems to be an issue.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Chuck, speaking of weight, since I currently have both a 95' KDX200 and a 87' XR200R, I learned something interesting between the two. Although their weights are close (KDX @222lbs dry), the KDX feels heavier compared to the XR. Those radiators, coolant, and larger fuel tank (nearly 3 gallons) compared to the 2 gallon tank on the XR, there is probably 20 lbs of weight up high on the KDX. You can certainly tell it's there on a rough, tight trail.

KDXIdaho

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've ridden KDXs and agree but they they perform well which makes them a very popular trail bike. I also tried a XR100 tank on a XR200 to reduce some of that fuel weight even more. If I were to go to a 2T trail bike I'd also consider the KTM 200-300 models.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just a little FYI, I grew up riding in the mountains. Doesn't change my opinion that the engine swap you're contemplating isn't going to accomplish much beyond giving you a heavier XR200 with really low gearing. Given that the XR has a 6-speed to the ATC's 5-speed, you could accomplish the same thing with sprockets and still have a more usable top gear.

I agree with this. Dual range bikes make very little sense. On a quad or trike you have a much worse power to weight ratio and the low range option is more viable. If WR's CRFs etc. can't get the job done it's those riders not the bikes holding back. I take my 650L places where KTM200, KDX200 and Husky 200 riders just shake their heads in wonder. And my 650 will go 2 mph or 95 when I get off the rocks. If you're intent on adding the dual range remember the pull start will be the limit on raising compression. This swap will work, just what's the point. It gives aan awkwward uncomfortable motorcycle that's not very good at anything but a playbike, maybe a Super Trail 90/110. I've done it with an 81 XR frame and 185S motor. Or a 4 stroke Rokon with suspension. Only did it cause the owner had the atc motor and didn't want to spend any money rebuilding the XR motor. Anyway good luck with the experiment. I think it can be done.